<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">OK, I have not followed this discussion
closely, but a cursory look showed me these papers:<br>
<br>
Sexual selection may be OK in some environments but not others
(extensive discussion on the elk example)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.kokkonuts.org/p/Sexy2die4.pdf">http://www.kokkonuts.org/p/Sexy2die4.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Some evidence sexual selection increases extinction risk in birds,
but it might be a double-edged tool:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691441/">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691441/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3545671?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">https://www.jstor.org/stable/3545671?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents</a><br>
<br>
No evidence sexual selection affects extinction rates in mammals:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691875/">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691875/</a><br>
<br>
Sexual selection (at least in beetles) protects against
accumulating mutational load:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7557/full/nature14419.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7557/full/nature14419.html</a><br>
<br>
My guess, after this scan and noting biologists still disagree ten
years after the initial papers, is that the effect is not
clear-cut at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015-10-19 03:22, Dan TheBookMan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACB7g25H=YYd=5DB8Zc0dXXcRurUzxtnWOHV4heVParLojKcEA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:09 PM, John Clark <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 Rafal Smigrodzki <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com">rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
>> you say it's in the bible, it's your job to quote
chapter and verse.<br>
><br>
> I don't have a bible, but maybe the October 28 1982
issue of Nature pages 818 to 820 will do,<br>
<br>
</div>
For those who prefer a URL, see:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n5886/abs/299818a0.html</a><br>
<br>
</div>
The article is titled 'Female choice selects for extreme tail
length in a widowbird.'
<div>
<div><br>
This will only do for the species in question. Also, this is
an extant species. How would this prove the case that sexual
selection drove another species -- e.g., the Irish Elk -- to
extinction?<br>
<div><br>
> if not try <br>
> page 201 of Richard book "The Blind Watchmaker". <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>The link is:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&q=201#v=snippet&q=201&f=false">https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&q=201#v=snippet&q=201&f=false</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>This merely tells what sexual is in lay terms. It
doesn't present an actual example of a species going
extinct from sexual selection.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
>> Also, I already provided links to articles
arguing against your position.<br>
><br>
><br>
> You provided no links that say a peacocks tail aids
in a individuals survival or is aerodynamic or does
anything other than help in finding a mate. <br>
> You did provided 3 links and you were correct when
you said " <br>
> All three point towards sexual selection as generally
increasing the likelihood of species survival<br>
> ". Well...how could it be otherwise? I<br>
> f it did not then either sexual selection or species
would have disappeared long long ago, it has not so sexual
selection must generally increasing the likelihood of
species survival<br>
> . QED.<br>
><br>
> However the key word is "generally" and that means
there are exceptions, and that means that sexual selection
can cause Evolution to make mistakes as it did with the
ridiculous antlers of the Irish Elk and drive the species
into extinction. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>That's still a speculation with regard to the Irish
Elk. There are many theories of why it went extinct. Why
is not possible that range reduction and hunting by humans
played a much bigger role here than merely having
supersized antlers? (If we're going to go back to the
1980s, e.g., check out this article: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/228/4697/340</a></a>
-- 'Taphonomy and Herd Structure of the Extinct Irish Elk,
Megaloceros giganteus.' Note what the abstract states:
adult males with small antlers seemed to have died during
winter segregation from females. What might that imply, if
true, about big antlers having an impact on survival?)</div>
<div><br>
>> Because off-the-cuff anthropomorphic
psychologizing doesn't rigorously (i.e. mathematically)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Evolution will never be totally as rigorous as some
other sciences because it depends<br>
> as much on history as it does on mathematics.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Maybe so, but then we also look toward data -- e.g.,
looking at the fossils or extant species -- and see what
happens. We can check speculations against both
mathematical models and field data -- all while admitting
this isn't a purely deductive science.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
> And psychoanalyzing is not needed<br>
> to know that humans and animals are attracted to some
things and repelled by others<br>
> and at least some of those likes and dislikes are
genetic.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>This is true, though one has to be very careful trying
to do this with extinct species like the Irish Elk. We
don't have direct field observations of their behavior. We
can use some extant species as models -- other elk, for
instance -- though one has to be careful with conclusions
drawn. And, of course, one can try to infer behavior from
fossil remains, but that also requires care. But, that
said, it seems the experts here are not all lining up for
big antlers did the Irish Elk in. :)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
>> tackle the stuff of evolution (mutation
frequency, fitness payoff, heritability, etc.).<br>
><br>
> A trait is not heritable if a mate can not be found.
Human females are sexually attracted<br>
> to human males they find attractive and the same is
true for female Irish Elk. For female<br>
> Irish Elk the larger the antlers the more attractive,
and so antler size increased explosively<br>
> with disastrous results for the species. Our
ancestors must have found something else<br>
> attractive, something else that could be used as a
obvious marker for fitness; perhaps it<br>
> was intelligent behavior, if so that would explain
the unprecedented increase in brain size<br>
> hominids underwent in the last million years or so.
Fortunately for us intelligent behavior<br>
> does more does more that just help in finding a mate
and so we are not extinct<br>
> , at least not yet.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>At best, this is speculative. You're giving us the same
just so story for why the elk went extinct. You need to
present better data and a stronger argument -- one that
addresses why other factors -- loss of habitat, range
fragmentation, human hunting -- didn't play a bigger or
dominant role in their extinction. The works you cited
don't seem to make that a slam dunk case.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
Sample my Kindle books via:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/">http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University
</pre>
</body>
</html>